[Author’s
note: a week or so after publishing “The
Real Matrix” on this site four and a half years ago I received
an email from a Terry Hayfield, an independent researcher based in Ohio,
who offered to share his findings. While his core claim was different
from what I’d proposed, there was a key point of congruence: both
of us realized, in different ways, that there is indeed a “real
matrix” in which most Americans are imprisoned, as it were: not
by some AI device, of course, but by their so-called educations, mass
media diversions, and the controlled political and economic systems—designed,
respectively, to indoctrinate, distract, and create an illusion of choice
within systems that are controlled from the top by a well entrenched
superelite (as I called it)—working through such entities as the
Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg
Group, and finally, the British Fabian Society. What had prompted Hayfield
to write? I already realized that I had committed an error: because
of the length of my discussion I had deleted a section on the Fabians.
According to Hayfield, my error was worse: my conception of the “real
matrix” was false, as it rested on a false premise: it neglected
the Permanent Revolution.

Here,
no doubt summarized too quickly, are Hayfield’s main claims based
on four decades of research and study including direct experience working
with organized labor. Outside the “real matrix” is the Permanent
Revolution, a term referring not to any specific power elite but to
a process, economic in nature, directing the actions of the elites,
who do what they do not simply because they want to but because they
have to. At the core of this process is a specific British-American
capitalism, managed by the British Fabian Society for the Crown.

British-American
capitalism has a design flaw: overproduction and underconsumption. Hayfield
calls this the flaw of capitalism. Because of the flaw of capitalism,
British-American capitalism is in constant turmoil; it must always change,
expand, revolutionize itself from within—finding new markets for
what it produces and finding ways of getting currency into consumers’
hands so they can buy what capitalists produce. Otherwise the system
falls into crisis and must resort to some form of fascism. Harvard economist
Joseph Schumpeter coined the phrase creative destruction to describe
this continuous process of disruption and change (see his Capitalism,
Socialism and Democracy, 1942). The superelite’s cure for the
flaw of British-American capitalism is the Permanent Revolution—building
up a global capitalism that at its height will evolve into global socialism
and then into global communism (in the sense Marx originally intended
for that term).

This
process, according to Hayfield, is what is sweeping away—destroying—our
Republic from within. It is crucial to grasp that in this view capitalism,
socialism and communism are not alternative systems but components of
a single process. British-American capitalism must exist in order for
the socialism originally desired by the Fabians to exist. Conversely,
socialism cannot exist without capitalism. British-American capitalism
thus stands at the foundation of the process. Hence (1)

British-American
capitalism—not socialism—is the enemy and must be the target
of those who would save our Republic. Moreover (2): communism as usually
defined is a myth. The Soviet Union was a poorly planned form of state
capitalism. The Leninists attempted socialism without a capitalist base.
Real communism thus hasn’t happened yet! British-American capitalism
is creating the conditions for its creation!

Such
a view is bound to raise eyebrows. More than one respondent has called
Hayfield a closet Marxist. This is simplistic. He believes that nearly
all Patriot organizations and publications are parts of the Hegelian
ploy to create a “controlled opposition” and herd as many
opponents into it as possible so that they may be safely neutered. He
believes this happened with the John Birch Society, which had subterranean
connections to Rockefeller dollars from the very start. Hayfield has
adapted the term Perestroika for all these efforts, which he also believes
includes Ron Paul’s rise to visibility.

I
have commented critically on Hayfield’s research here
and here;
Hayfield responded here.
I have reservations about a number of his conclusions, which include
the idea of a new political fusion of “left” and “right”
forming a new political party devoted to exposing the Fabians and thwarting
the Permanent Revolution. He has more confidence than I do that independent
voters will respond to an exposure of the Fabians. As of yet they have
not responded to exposures of the much better known CFR and the Trilateral
Commission, probably because they are more interested in sports and
American Idol. I am unsure, more generally, that our Republic can be
saved. In my pieces linked to above I expressed doubts about the existence
of an economic process that stands above the aggregate actions of individuals,
including the superelite. Using the principle known as Ockham’s
Razor, we might consider that the superelite with its tremendous resources
and pull, an educational system designed to turn us all into collectivists
and subordinates, and the myriad distractions including the explosion
in sexual innuendo in the marketplace since the Kinseyite revolution,
just might suffice. But
I do not dismiss out of hand the possibility of supervening historical
laws governing these things. I know of cases of Republics becoming Empires
(e.g., Rome); I know of no cases of Empires returning to being Republics.
Doubtless there are reasons why this is the case.

Advertisement

Also,
I am unclear what kind of society Hayfield would have us work toward,
although he clearly sees the system instituted by the Articles of Confederation
as superior to what came about later with the Constitution and when
the Crown reasserted control (Jay Treaty). That doesn’t help us
much today, of course, if for no other reason than the vastly greater
complexity of society now. As bad as the present structures of domination
are, the power vacuum created by their sudden end in a population accustomed
to them seems to me equally if not more dangerous, which is why I continue
to support specific piecemeal efforts such as Ron Paul’s, first
to audit and then to eliminate the Federal Reserve—one thing at
a time. Be all this as it may, I would like to see Hayfield’s
research studied and discussed. After all, with the current manufactured
crisis deepening, we need everybody’s ideas on
the table, and not let our egos get in the way of frank and open dialogue.
I am told that Mr. Hayfield has had hostile exchanges with other NewsWithViews.com
contributors. This is unfortunate, because while my views are not congruent
with his, his documentation is quite extensive and his specific claims
about, e.g., the Fabians, check out. If it pushes the limits of our
comfort zones, then so be it. Our purpose here is to learn and communicate
the truth—or as much of it as we can uncover—not maintain
feelings of intellectual security. For only on this basis can we expect
our actions to succeed. And let’s observe that with last year’s
very public bailouts of institutions deemed “too big to fail”
and articles now appearing about Halliburton-subsidized detention camps
not on “conspiracy sites on the Internet” but in the very
mainstream San
Francisco Chronicle, we are rapidly running out of time!]

Cardinal
Error Four. Americans did not recognize the British Fabian
Society for what it was, and remained blind as the Fabians infiltrated
and slowly assumed control over every dominant institution in this country—paving
the way for today’s unbridled globalism.

I.

Surprisingly
few writers exposing this or that element of the world-government movement
have mentioned the Fabians. Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy &
Hope: A History of the World In Our Time (1966) appears to dismiss
them out of hand without even naming them by name. He refers to “wild-eyed
and bushy-haired theoreticians of Socialist Harvard and the London School
of Economics” (p. 949). He left the impression that the Fabians
are insignificant. This is wrong and must be corrected. Major economist
and economic historian Joseph Schumpeter paid them homage (see his Capitalism,
Socialism & Democracy, 1942) ; and it is significant that arch-capitalist
Alan Greenspan also incorporates them into his discussion at strategic
points (The Age of Turbulence, 2007). Rose L. Martin saw them
as instrumental in having moved America leftward from the last turn
of the century up to the 1960s (Fabian Freeway: The High Road to
Socialism in the U.S.A., 1968).

Classical
Marxism viewed the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as on a collision
course that would end in violent revolution that would end capitalism
and instill socialism. Once socialism had eradicated the last vestiges
of capitalist domination it would evolve into communism. By the 1880s—at
the end of Marx’s life—it was dawning on observers including
Marx himself that violence was no more necessary than it was desirable.
They could work toward the kind of society they wanted through penetration
and permeation. Penetration involved infiltrating existing institutions
by members of the Fabian Society. Permeation would involve furthering
Fabian goals by non-Fabians once these institutions were hijacked. But
who were the Fabians?

The
mid-1800s was witness to an upsurge of interest in socialism, including
in the English-speaking world. Robert Owen’s ideas and communal
experiments had attracted attention. In the early 1880s, an organization
called the Fellowship of the New Life began to meet. In January 1884,
a splinter group was officially organized as the Fabian Society. Their
credo stated explicitly, “The Fabian Society consists of socialists.”
They took their name from Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Roman general
who specialized in delaying tactics. Fabian Tract No. 1, a
four-page leaflet, stated, “For the right moment you must wait,
as Fabius did most patiently when warring against Hannibal, though many
censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as
Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.” The
Fabians’ symbol was the tortoise—moving ever forward; inoffensively;
quietly, quietly; but always on the move. Arguably the Fabians never
“struck hard.” But as it turned out, they didn’t have
to.

The
Fabians’ sources ranged from Owen to Darwinian evolution, and
Comtean positivism. Of the latter, Edward Pease wrote in his History
of the Fabian Society (1918), “his philosophy accepted science,
future as well as past.” The Fabians, although far more interested
in behind-the-scenes activism than in philosophy or ideology, fit nicely
into the shift from a Christian worldview to materialism and Enlightenment
humanism. They also drew on John Stuart Mill and Henry George, in addition
to Karl Marx who had just died in 1883.

The
most famous early members were, of course, Sydney and Beatrice Webb,
and George Bernard Shaw the playwright. Other members included classical
scholar Graham Wallas, psychologist and sexual-liberationist Havelock
Ellis, theosophist Annie Besant, artist Walter Crane, historian Edward
Pease, author Israel Zangwill, and Karl Marx’s daughter Eleanor.
The Fabians continued meeting and strategizing—and expanding.
They were excellent networkers. Their influence grew during the late
1880s and early 1890s, especially after the publication of Fabian
Essays in 1890. This collection promoted socialism in language
anyone could read—as opposed to Marx’s turgid prose most
of which analyzed capitalism and elicited its supposed flaws instead
of espousing socialism. In 1895 the Webbs accepted a large grant courtesy
of the estate of Henry Hunt Hutchison to found the London School of
Economics (LSE). The Fabians now had a visible center of influence!
Their turtle moved steadily forward, and never looked back!

Advertisement

Close
inspection of not-usually-cited but nevertheless crucial documents makes
it clear that the Fabians hijacked Rhodes’s oft-cited plan for
a secret society that would expand British control around the world,
including America. Rhodes was no socialist, after all; but he had ideas
the Fabians found useful, such as British-led globalism. According to
William H. McIlhany’s The Tax-Exempt Foundations (1980),
it was William T. Stead, a Fabian, who, in 1891, introduced Rhodes and
future Round Tablers Alfred Milner, Arthur Balfour, and others. In other
words, behind the “Anglophile network” of Round Table Groups
Carroll Quigley credits in Tragedy & Hope (p. 950) were the Fabians!
In 1900, the Fabian Society would be instrumental in helping organize
the British Labour Party, with Shaw writing its constitution. By this
time the Fabian Society claimed 861 members.

II.

There
can be no doubt that the Fabians had landed on American shores. They
knew Americans would not warm to socialism under that name. So they
called themselves progressives. (Later, they would expropriate
the word liberal.) American Fabians began to form study groups
in American universities. Among the institutions they penetrated and
permeated was Princeton, whose president Dr. Woodrow Wilson they would
surround. In “Colonel” Edward Mandell House (ambitious son
of Texas-based landowner and Rothschild agent Thomas House), they found
a permanent link to the international banking cartel seated in the City
of London and connected to the Crown.

House
anonymously authored Philip Dru: Administrator (1912) which
promoted a central bank, a graduated income tax, control over both political
parties, and “socialism as dreamt of by Karl Marx.” He became
Wilson’s right-hand man as the elites of the day promoted his
presidency on the promise of his signing into law an act of Congress
creating a central bank: what became the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
The infamous secret
Jekyll Island meeting had already been held following the manufactured
Panic of 1907, and the Rothschild-Rockefeller-Schiff-Morgan axis was
ready to move.

The
year 1913, of course, was pivotal in the ruination of our Republic.
We saw the end of Constitutional money as control over monetary policy
was placed in the hands of a private entity (strictly speaking, the
first public-private partnership) controlled by a secretive cartel of
private corporations. We also saw the first incarnation of the Internal
Revenue Service, and the creation of the Anti-Defamation League. The
former created the first direct, unapportioned tax. Such a tax had been
ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Pollock v. Farmers
Loan & Trust Co., 1895). The response was the change the Constitution
by adding the Sixteenth Amendment. Today, shadows hang over that Amendment.
Was it really ratified in the way the Constitution requires? Independent
researcher William J. Benson says it wasn’t (see his The Law
That Never Was, 1985). The courts have rejected Benson’s
arguments as “frivolous.” Of course. The Anti-Defamation
League, meanwhile, would later brand criticism of the Federal Reserve
and other manifestations of superelite influence as “anti-Semitic.”
Their attacks would all but destroy the reputation of Eustace Mullins,
an independent scholar whose Secrets
of the Federal Reserve (1952) was the first effort to expose
the superelites behind its creation.

“Colonel”
House, a master organizer with a huge network, assembled what he called
the Inquiry. This is interesting, in light of what we learned about
“commissions of inquiry” when investigating the Jay Treaty;
the Fabians were still operating from Great Britain, after all. By this
time, the Crown was surely looking on with quiet approval. Following
a meeting at the Hotel Majestic on May 30, 1919, House’s Inquiry
became the parent of both the Royal Institute of International Affairs
in Great Britain and the Council on Foreign Relations in the U.S. The
latter was formally organized in 1921. These organizations immediately
began laying the foundations for a global society—which meant
working against U.S. interests as a sovereign Republic based on the
Constitution. They had suffered a setback in 1919 when the U.S. Senate
torpedoed U.S. participation in the League of Nations, dooming one of
their first brainchildren to irrelevance even though it survived in
Europe for a time. The U.S. would, of course, join its stepchild the
United Nations, in 1945.

The
Fabian Society, meanwhile, continued to penetrate and permeate. Other
highly influential Fabians included John Dewey whom we encountered in
Part 3, author H.G. Wells, historian and author Arnold Toynbee, economist
John Maynard Keynes, and major philosopher Bertrand Russell. Dewey,
in addition to his Rockefeller-bankrolled Progressive Education movement,
had a key voice in the Fabian-directed League for Industrial Democracy.
Originally called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society founded in 1905,
it changed its name in 1921 and soon permeated organized labor in America.
Dewey was also closely tied to the American Humanist Association, becoming
the lead author of its infamous Humanist Manifesto which attempted
to work out a secular ethic to accompany the Comtean “scientific
society.”

H.G.
Wells would author not just early science fiction novels such as The
Time Machine (1895) and War of the Worlds (1898) but also,
following his time with the Fabians, The Open Conspiracy (1928) and
The New World Order (1940). He had broken with them and was
pursing an even more radical vision of a socialist World State incorporating
Comte’s notion of a “religion of humanity.” The New
World Order spoke chillingly of the opposition: “Countless people
... will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration
of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting
against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear
in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them
quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” In The Shape of
Things To Come (1938), Wells presents a future in which his World
State has eradicated Christianity.

Arnold
Toynbee, an original Rhodes Round Tabler who later became official historian
for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, would give an address
in 1931 to his fellow globalists at the Conference of Institutions for
the Scientific Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen entitled
“The Trend of International Affairs Since the War” He would
defend the need for secrecy in the assault on national sovereignty:
“I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly
but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called
sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our
world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are
doing with our hands…” (All italics mine.)

John
Maynard Keynes had already realized (along with Lenin) that the way
to destroy the free enterprise system was to debase its medium of exchange
and make it fruitless for common people to save. In his book The
Economic Consequences of Peace (1920) he stated, “Lenin is
said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System
was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, government
can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth
of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they
confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it
actually enriches some…. Lenin was certainly right. There is no
subtler, no surer method of overturning the existing basis of society
than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces
of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner
which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

This
is the same Keynes who would work out the details of what has become
the dominant economic philosophy of today’s elite-controlled British-American
capitalism, a system based on inflation, mass consumption, debt, and
government’s “priming the pump” when the system fell
into crisis as it inevitably would—repeatedly. Keynes’s
General Theory (1936) became the economic bible of the Roosevelt
/ WWII era and for decades after. Keynes is still the most influential
economist in the Western world. Everyone who believes that the federal
government can spend a society into prosperity, or that printing-press
money can generate more than pseudo prosperity (as it did during the
1990s) is under the long-term spell of Keynes. Clearly, and despite
his initial defense of the gold standard under Ayn Rand’s temporary
and superficial influence, this included Alan Greenspan. It presently
includes Ben Bernanke as well as people like Henry Paulson (U.S. Treasury
Secretary under George W. Bush) and Timothy Geithner (U.S. Treasury
Secretary under Barack Obama).

Bertrand
Russell, finally, developed openly some of the consequences of the Comtean
“scientific society” in his books The Scientific Outlook
(1931) and The Impact of Science on Society (1952). The focus
is on education, and picks up where Rockefeller’s General Education
Board left off. Russell proposed that in the “scientific society”
the elite receive one kind of education while the masses receive another:
“the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for
ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders
of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile,
industrious, punctual, thoughtless and contented. Of these qualities
contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce
it, all the researches into psycho-analysis, behaviorism, and biochemistry
will be brought into play.” And: “Education should aim at
destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will
be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting
otherwise than as their school masters would have wished…. The
populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.
When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been
in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to
control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

The
upshot is that in the Comtean-Russellian “scientific society”—its
masses educated according to methods proposed by Dewey in accordance
with those desires expressed originally by Rockefeller’s General
Education Board—science and technology would become not instruments
of liberation but instruments of control.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

All
this further explains why subjects like history and philosophy have
been neutered, relegated to the status of academic decoration. The emerging
superelite would not be philosopher-kings, as Plato had envisioned in
The Republic, but technocrats of behavior. There would be a
place for everybody, and everybody would be conditioned to stay in his/her
place. Harvard’s B.F. Skinner, yet another recipient of Rockefeller
dollars, would openly pursue the idea of a “technology of behavior”
based on such notions as operant conditioning. The most visible result
was his widely-read Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971) which
urged the rejection of “autonomous man,” i.e., men and women
regarded as free to choose their own destiny in life, as opposed to
that chosen for them by a technocratic superelite.

Steven Yates
has a doctorate in philosophy and has taught the subject at a number of
Southeastern colleges and universities. He is the author of two books:
Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994) and Worldviews:
Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism (2005). His articles and reviews
have appeared in refereed philosophy journals such as Inquiry, Metaphilosophy,
Reason Papers, and Public Affairs Quarterly, as well as on a number of
sites on the Web. He also writes regular columns for a conservative weekly,
The Times Examiner. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina with two spoiled
cats, Bo and Misty

One of Comte’s
core interests was in the future of humanity and in the possibility of
a “scientifically planned” society. Such visions would capture
the imaginations of major writers of the 1900s. Examples include H.G.
Wells and Bertrand Russell. Both, at different times, were members of
the British Fabian Society, for whom the doors had been left wide open.